That is the vision that many people in Launceston have in their memories: of a river with limited siltation accumulation and easier access. It was a time when environmental regulation - and understanding of the effects on river health - was somewhat minimal.

That vision of the Tamar isn't what you'd see 200 years ago. And it's not what you'd see today, now that dredging and raking has stopped for a few years.

To the credit of all involved, a rigorous scientific process has been undertaken to respond to the Tamar's unique values as a tidal estuary. And science - combined where practical with community values and expectations - should be central to decision-making. A working group of six authors and experts in their fields, technical input from Hydro and other engineers, through a detailed TEER process, flood modelling and then four independent peer reviews from internationally-recognised researchers should give the public confidence that the outcome is robust.

As always, it comes down to what the Launceston community values most. To remove the supposed visual problem of mud flats is clearly an expensive and never-ending process. The cost of large-scale infrastructure ideas is exorbitant and, according to TEER, have no guarantee of success. Raking won't get environmental approval and ongoing dredging requires land to dewater spoil - land which isn't available.

The 2016 floods pushed out 170,000-cubic-metres of sediment anyway - the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars worth of human interference.

The TEMT draft vision won't be for everyone, but over the coming months, members of the public will be able to put forward their cases for ways to improve river health.

At the heart of the discussion is this: what sort of river do we want, what are we willing to pay for and what can realistically be achieved in a modern world?